Thornburgh v. West Penn Railways Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 408, Jan. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., Sept. T., 1915, No. 30, for want of sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Eliza W. Thornburgh, Mary O. Casement, Robert M. Thornburgh, Eliza W. Lindsey, Catherine W. Hazard, Mary W. Harrison, Samuel E. Ewing, John K. Ewing, Jr., Belle E. Howell, William K. Ewing, Jared M. B. Reis v. West Penn Railways Company. Assumpsit upon an award of arbitrators.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 408, Jan. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., Sept. T., 1915, No. 30, for want of sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Eliza W. Thornburgh, Mary O. Casement, Robert M. Thornburgh, Eliza W. Lindsey, Catherine W. Hazard, Mary W. Harrison, Samuel E. Ewing, John K. Ewing, Jr., Belle E. Howell, William K. Ewing, Jared M. B. Reis v. West Penn Railways Company. Assumpsit upon an award of arbitrators. The facts appear in the following opinion of Van Swearingen, P. J.: ■ In 1902 and 1903 the West Penn Railways Company, or its predecessors in interest,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The insufficiency of defendant’s affidavit of defense is convincingly pointed out in the opinion of the learned court below making absolute plaintiffs’ rule for judgment. To that opinion nothing can be added, and, on it, the judgment is affirmed.